THE BORDERLlNE PlERSO'NALITY: EXPLORING THE ROLE OF ,AFFECTIVE ThfS TAB ILITY AND THE PIVE-FA:CJlOR MODHL NEUROTIC[SM

lQum,al of Psychol.og'ical Researches. August 2009. Vol. 53. No.2, P.9' 1 ~99

Albs,tmcm

The pa.peT explores rehui"onship of borderline personality wilhaffecljy·e i.rtuability and Five-Factor Model (FFM) neurQtix.:ism. The dala of 217 SUI bjec'LS (] 06 mal e and 1 U females) were obtained on BP1-CtH20. affective insLabil,j,ty scale (AlS), and NEO-FPl nellFiolkis:rrm (FFM Nl. The Iacecr analysis of BPI,-CI.n2'O yieldedsil1gh: f.u:::l.or sol ution. Females scored hi.gher ,than males 'an all variables, whh smalle.:ffec:t-size. The AlSand FF'M N were correlated with BPI-COl '20. The results, alsn Jndicared that AJ,S is a bener predictor of borderljne pers,olil.aJlity than FFM N ,a.nd had better dis·crimin.anl '1sLidiI:Y. The results, suggest that affective instebjlity lis a core component of bordeeline pClFs,on.;aIiILY.

Inl'.ro(h:.lcliQII

The Borderline Personality Disorder CBPD) of Axis 1.[ of the DSM-IV~ l'R (American Psychiatric A ssociatlon , APAt 200l0, is ORe of lfue_ ~~,st researched peli:sonalHy deviations (e.g., Lm~s, 2007'), Kernberg's suuctural theory ofp'ersonaJIny organization differenlicnes ILhe Borderline ~Perso-

. .. (D PO· ) rrom neurone and

naluy Organizauou ~'.- .bI· ••..

. at"· ill.·e ba sis (If nredomma.m.

psychotic person . fty an m '.' . -. f" - _.. •

• •• ~ t: .. m· echanisms LdenlHy

use of prlmlLiVe 'Uel,enoe . . ,j;!".u~ •• ' •..•

d i Ifu si on: an d relari vel y i nlac; re.ahty m.estl.,Ilg,

. .'1 K· errnbeNl advanced faully object

respecu ve '1. ." • eo. . . iI" ,

. . ,.. I· .. ' Klein in t.crms 01'

relations Idea of Me anle .. .

...

spIimw,ng' that ma'nil'7esl in oscillaJ.ling pereeptiens or self and ethers as 'ail-good' and ':all-bad' "[0 pro~cc::( the ego from confiiclS" (.Kembcrg. 1911; p. ~0'1). Linehan's (1993) 'inherent oppositlens' 1010 foc1!Ises on dicholomous 'thinking.

'!be :DSM-rV-lR (APt\. 20X» diagnostic eriierie reprcseml synllhes.ls of K,c:r-mberg (917) and Gunderson 's (Zallari.m~. Gu ndc.rsan •. Fi3f1kcnl:u.llI'g, Chauncey. (1939) ideas aad d.cnn~ BPJ[) as "pen' asi vc pattern of i ns,tabiJi~)'Qf i.nterpers,on.31 rehn i enships.. self-,image and affecl.3.J:iId marked iim'p\l:lsi~ry lh,,~ begins in eaTI)' adulthecd' (p, 106). The diagnostie criteria are frnrll.ic efforts '0 avold abandnemeae, unstable and iatense lnrerpersunal retariensbips, ideruit)' distlJ.rbances. impuIsivilj' .. suiddaJ behaviours. affective insl,abitiLy. chroniC: feeling 'of emptiness, difficulty with finger •. allld tl"an.sient psychotic sym.pto,ms. Oiscourag'cd. i, m P1.!ils iV'C, peLI..!I. hun. and self -desirueu IJ e are consldered as v3.ri.atiolu of borderline. personaI ity. In a recent review. Paris (2l001)~_gl!lGd ~un BPD is a mulu...c!limensiol1lali syndrome Vli'lm mullJp·le dialflesis and h'igh symptom levd aad ne:pce, the d.iagmosis o,r B·PD needs, Ito be based on. l1;an~,w set of criaeria, Though, Iaetor anatyuc studies of DSM-rV eri~eria for BPD showed Illlam it refleets a sliuisticaUy coherent construet, some resear:h,ers argue tllat sub-ayping era PO ,on th.e ~a~.I.s ~'f number of eeireria mel exphlin liule vana.hoI'l In heterogeneuy ill 11m disordel

92

Borderline persona Ii s. afFectiyeilnstllbiHl), and PFM N

Widiger &. Clllaynes (2001) discussed varieas issues, in [he assessment of PDs including lhc bordcrli,ne personalily. The Borderline Persol1lalit) r n'Ventol)' (B PI; Lekhsenring. 1999)" lite Borderline Personality Questionnaire (llPQ~ Po reb, let al., 2006). DIB~R (Zan3Jrinl, ct 31.. 1989J. etc. are comrnonly used in the assessment of borderline personality. LeicnseJilring (1999) re.cog,[,lIsed msu rfjcicT1t discriminanl validity, high :false posi tive results, poor agreement wiln semistructured interviews, etc. as some. of the problems associated 'With measueement,

B D and Affective InsLability

The DSM~rY-TR (APA, 2000) considers affective instability as marked reactivity or mood like intense episodic dysphoria, lrritabiluy and an iety, Kcrnberg and D. Klein rheerixed thai borde rl inc person shave eonsti l u don a! ina bi I i [y to regularc afFecl that make them susceptible lO psychic disorganization under snrne early -d.irncuh

nvironrnerual eondltions. Linehan 1993) holds [hat BPD primarily is a problem of ernorlonal regulalion lhal includes arfec~ivc vulncrahi] tyand i nabil it)' (0 regulate affec Live. states, l30rclcrl lues a senshi e 10 broad range of emotional stimulations and react quickly anti il1lCTlSl;ly. According I~p him, they cannot accurately label emoticn and cannot deal With il The biological foundation of affecLive. insLabi.lilY is a centrovertial Issue with mixed fadings (e.g., Herpenz, Kunert, Scnwengcr, & S.l.SS~ J 999). Koenigsberg. et 211. (2002) suggested two reasons fOT studying a.He-ctive insnabililY in borderlines. One. to know -hether 'affective. ins[abHity' in personality disorders leads LO unsteady affectacross all affects or only in: selected ones. Second" improved characterizing of affective Instability wou Id help in differential diagnosis of affectively u nstable persnnulity disorders from Axis [ affective spectrum disorders. The study of daily mood fluctuatious showed that the affective

ari ability among patients, who mel criteria fur bPD, was nonrandom. suggesting a systematic u('ldcrlying process determining aIfetlive instability (Woysln'ille, Lackamp. Eisengart, Gilliland. 1999). "file BPD patients showed t-ugh morning to evening ruood v3ria1JIIIly find (llu.s~lt'r randam dls[ribu(101l

of merning' mood. Kooni'gsbcrg. eral, 1(2002) shoWed iliaL. DI'iICe controlled for other variables" BPD is fOlJnd '10 relate with gTlcaler lability in '~eRrls or anger, anxiety, and osciUation between depress!j.on and aJfIxiety. They foundllocender difference for BP]) pllli<l!rIILS i.n the Affective Lability Scale -SC-()[ies. They slJrp.risingly found that expelrience of increased subjectlve aJfec'Liv,e in.(ensity was not more prominent in BPD patlems IIha:n in those Mlh other pevscllaUty disorders. Reviewsllave indkated the relationship' of Bf'D with anx.iety disorders and arrective; proble'!'lI'Is (e.g .• Links, 20(1). KJoerugsber,g. iH 31 (2002) ,argued 1.1'1,31 in spite or cllnicat importance and theoretical prerainenee., the phenomenon or affective instability in :pers,orw.1ity disorders has no'( been wen described (p, 784).

The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of Person-aUty and, Berderliae Personafity Disorder

The ive~FOIIctor Model (FFM) bas emergedas an alternarl ve rQbu-st deseriptlon of personaHt.y traits in the last lW'O decades of 20th century and by now IL h as bee orne a cardi nal pe:rsonaH't)' appreach (e.g .. McCrae. &, AIHk. 2.002). Tile ' Fivc-Pacrcrs are most eommonly labelled as Neuroticism (N). Extraversion I(E), Openness to

=.xpcricnce (0). Ag.I',e,tcable.lless CAl and I Consciemiousness (C) in the PPM lradhiQn. It draws suppon from cross~cul[IJra1·gen:era1izabili(y o[ the PPM in terms of Hs strucusral crganization, ontogenesis and gender differences. Indeed. the FFM argue that traits are not merle descriptions of behavicr but lheycontributecau.saHy to lhe development of habits, altitud.es, skiltsand characteri stic adaptations, Cross-en hUral s'tut'lies, including Indian work (Lodhi. DeQ, & Bethekar, 2002) have pfovid1cd a serious, impetus (IJ the model. Belhekar (2008) discussed Y,meH1S iS$IIl,es re,garding cross-culrural researeh in !:rail psy'(!;hology with reference to the FFM,

Widi.gcr (1993) initiated the discourse on [he; categoric al d i ag nosis of pcrsonali t,Y disordel' and proposed an alternative dimensional approach based on the FPM. Various auihers su,ggeSI some ag r eemen t between ih e 'FFl'.l and j1Gf'ionalll. disorders (e.g ... Widi~l:r:. 20051. hill as

'~vek M. BclhCk3Jr and Nrfll"uta A. Padhyle O)'ce (1'991) .poin ted OIO't, iLv81ries whh ins.tru merstat.ion, metbod of report, and data ,anillysis.

Dyoe ( I 99'7) coneluded that. the FFM N is OI1l,e IEIf t'be ~mportanL predictor Qlf l.heBPD_ Costa and Wldiger (20.0 I) proposed that the 'FFM N is a core Itrait underlying the llPD. Livestey (200 I) sugges~ed In.a l a borderl i IH~: pattern pr~m:ari I,y reflecrs abnormal ities on broad persoaality di raenslen measorin,g emotional re;guIatjon. Such ,3, dimension, ~n Ihe FFM framework. irs neurerietsrn. WJdjg'er (1993), remarked that tile BPD illvr:dvesprimari,ly excessive elevatioa on all the facets of neuroucisra, TI1,C fRv1 N faeets rclaun,g to BfD i:ndude hostility. irnplUlsi vily trail anxiety, trait depression and vutncrabililY. 'lNidiger and! Frances (1989) argue ID..a'[ higll amount of prevaJe'llce and co-m,orbkuly or BPO can be explained by conceptuafiei ag bordedine petsonaliry dlsorder as extreme of trail n eurotici sm. Widiger (1993) feels tlhal eoro .. orOtdilL), problems in BPD caa be sorted QUn by applying the FF1'Vf 10 understand BPD. He further argues that as Kernberg's cone,cpt of BPO cuts across the penonalily disorder. the FFM neure+ic ism cuts across imponanl ind] ... iduai differences. And hence, FFM N is likely to assist tn unders ta ndlrrg the BPD. The neuroticism conceptualizaelon or Costa. ant! McCrae (i 9923, b) is. quu e clcsety associated whhnonspedfh::: m.anmfeslaLions or BPD, ~,ike impulse eomrol. vulnerablfity, and am:iel)". ete, Studies comparin~ borderline and nenborderline patients on ~he ~ have concluded. lhal borderlines have tiligb scores on FF'M OBuro(icism (Zweig-Frank &. Paris, 1995). Wilberg. Urnes. Friis. Pedersen • .& Karterud (1999) found lhal BPD ~s assacjated with high FFM neurolic,is,m, parliClillarly high scores on angry hOSlilily and impulsivity. face~s. NeurOticism has shown maxirnam correjauon with borderline. personality in cross-culLLLral ~audy [rom Afnca, Mauritjus, and Switl.eria.nd (Ro~sler" RigOl;: i , I G members of Pcrsona.I'ily Across Cui LUre Research Group, 2008).

The review presents an in'lCreSlin~ proble.m.

The I-FM 1'I11,.·urnli -ism and affective ,"s.~aI"Hll1~'. 1 J fIn" e be c n prop JS~u as ClJfC componcms ,[

93

BPD. Their relative sb'ength witl1 re.ference tQ BPO htls nom: been c"plored tho'roughly. ,especially ~n II::),dia The present work attempts eo umden!:W1d mis proble'Dl with IntH,an da'la. We'ellpe,clthat the ,affec'l'iY·e insralllHHy as, VIi',en as FFM N w.o,uld correla.te well with each m::her but afftttive insmbili,ty SltU would rem,u'i1 a better correlate of BP'D.

ME1rIOD

Partie ipaats

The partlclpaats of dJlis st udy' are 217 undergraduate and post-:gradu.ate slud,enls (mean ag~;; i 9 .40" SO = 1.4 n of colleges and universilY i n Mumbai Cilly belon,gia,g {IO three faculties. Out of these 106, are male (mean age ~ 19.33. SD = 1.1:3) and III are fert'l 31 le (mean nge =19.45. S:O = 1.48~ participants.

Tools

B orderl i ne Fe.u@n,ality Lnven nory- Cut20 Scale (BPI-Ctli 20). The BPT-Cut. 20 iss loll-ii,em true-false, self-report instrurnent eonsistlng of the most disc.rimjnalimlg 20 items of Ilhe BPI (Leicbsemic,g, 199,51). I~ is ,3, measure af Borderiine Perso(ijJ3hily O.rganiz;ui,on. The scale is based 0111 Kernberg's and Gunderson's cO[1lc,e,pl or IlFD. Salisfa.ctory internal CQnSiSlency and test-retest reliabilil1 and structural and discriminant validity is reported by Leichsemrin,g (H199).

Affr;;clivl:l: lns;taiJi1itr Scale CArolS). The Affec_tivc InSiabilit.y subscale -of the Borderline. Pemorl3llhy Questl0mlllai[lc (S,PQ) :is a 10 item Itrue-false.. selfreport .inS(rumclll to ~ess vcdalUity of affective states (P'orch, eL al., 20(6). Poreh. em, at. fl§.po.rted satisfactory Internal c.on:sis.tency reliabHities, lholl..l,g.h some cnltural varja~iClJIl across meaa levels has been observed.

NEG Fi ve-Fae tor Inventory Neu eetielsm Sca"h: (NEO-FF~ N). Tbe Neuroticism scale of'lhe NE.o~ PA is 12-1tlem 5-poiml L'ikmt-m:ype scale (Cos~a & McCrae, 1992.a). The scale assesses the mra~t of neuroticism concrepJlludiliOO in terms o:f a.n:u,cty, angry-hoslil,ity, impL11si~Des~, vulnel"abiJiLy. etc. Qu ite a [t:;'i!i' Indi a n studies have reported ,'aJ:idIlY or the scale (Lodhi. Deo, &; Bdhekru-. 2002~

~tc )

Ihuder1inc personality, affec[jvc inSI:AbHil, and PPM N Gender Difference'.!>,

To, eva hu~te the gender di rference on three: perso'rlanly variabLes. one-way multhariate analyslis of variance (M ANOVA) bas been earned out trcali'Jllg gender a s a 0: i ndcpemdent variable, The three dependent vari3!bh::s were Scores on BPI-Cut20 scale, AlS, and NEO-FF1 N scale .. The sLisulbHi.ty of MANOVA and the assumplions undcrly i ug i I were e areftllily assessed~QnOwing :Huberty and Petoskey (2000), and Tabacb.nick and FideU (200.1). The MANOVA yi;eld.ed Wilks' uunbda{A) value of ,963.5; F(3. 21 J) = 2.69, pi <: ,OS. Since Wilks' L:unbda is significant, multiple univariate L tests fOF three dependants were earned out. Cohen's d has been. computed flOr si,gnificant djfferenc:es to assess effect-siae. The variables on which females, as compared to males, showed signi fican.dy hI gher mum: are BPI-'CuI20 (l; 2.30,

p -c .05~ d ~ 032), AIS (t:::: 2.16. p < .05: d == 0.2.9) and NED-FA N (l = 2.22,. P -c .0.5; d =: .0.30).

Pror::cdure and Data SCfccni.n.g.

'The BPI-Cul20, AIS. and NEQ-FFT N scale were administered under ncrmal resti rtg conditions. The subjects were a.ssured anonymityl con,fid,en tiaJitv. Finally data of 218 subj!:cls \ven ::IJvadalJle. The datswere em-efull)" examined fm univariate and muhi\rfJIriaile ouujers, missing. 'f'alues before inclusion (Tabuchnick, & FideU, 20tH; TillsJ&~ .& Bm\\.n .. 2000, ctc.), The dau 0·( one male subject was deteted as a multivariate. nutlier (Mah:aJanobis nl= 24.29; df == 3, P <.(01). Beforf3c clubbil1g the male-female data, ilern-wise. '2 X 2. (Gender X Item response) X 2 analyse.s have been carried out for BPI-CUT20 and AIS. T\:Venty~rl 'lie out of thirty X 2 indicated that item responses are independem of gend~r:. So the male-Iemale data has been clubbed

for further analysis.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency

The: mean and standard deviation for all the variables am presented in Table 1 for males. females and entire sample. The normal a1l1d detrended normal Q-Q plots of residuals ror each variable are sati sfactory,

The Cronbac 's refor the BPI"el.lt10 scale was fuund to be ,86, TIu~ reliability coefficient is highly satisfactory anti is comparable to the value of .85 reported by Leichseuring (1999). The Cronbach's a. or IO-item AIS is .74 which is identical La rehalHliLy reponed by Porch, e{ al, (2006).

C orrel atinnal Analysis

The corrclutron of .Bl!'I~Ou.f20 scale withAIS is .:53 (p <: .00]) and with NEO-FFt N is .18 (p <:: ,00 I). The co rre I arion of NEO-FFl N with AlS is 50 (p <: .(01). The Box's M = 6,654: F (6, 332981) = 1.09. [l = .364; indicated the equality of variancecovariance matrices for males and females.

Fac or Analysis of BPI-CUllO

The factor analysis of the. BPI-CuI2Q was planned for two pu OSCS: u) 11 J e ';lluare BPI-CuI20 for onstruct validity: l) to USc factor scores for extension lUHllysis

Table - 1 : Descriptive statistics for male f male nud enure sample and gender differences.

En tire Sample

Male

so

Merna

SD

Mean

BPl~O AI

837 529

-:1.%

758 4.89

26

k34 2.68

-,67

FFM-N

Note'

:2 I

np,1-ClJT20 = 8ord~rUm:, Pl'-" OJmlilY In l(Ory ShClI.I l 111."0 Al

"l-N- Nr~n-.·N t:.Llf()llclSIU ~ J1 <: U5 J' 'I I

' • -tal l: l PJ babilit

fl ctl'h' In tublhty~

95 1.39', 1.23. 1.21. 1.15, 1.02,0.90,0.87.0.81 and 0.75. The Ceuell's seree sugge. ted single-factor sol ulio'n thar explained 28.2& per cent of tQta~ variance. This factor is labeled as Borderline PersonaJity Organiz3tilon, Faclor (F-BPO). This solution is, reponed illl Tablle 2. The factor score has been saved as a variable by employmg regression method. Tile extension analysis. employillg the saved factor scores in furtlrler analyses as, variables. has been cerried out, The F-BPO correlated with AmS by .51 (p <.001.' and

Vi\'ck Mo. Belhekar and Amruta A, Padhye

Initially. the 210 X 2U correlaticn metri of he it,cms or the BPT-ClJt20 , as scrllltini1.'ed for factorabmlY. The Kailser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy rMSA) W3'l .85 the value usually considered as very-good, The MSA for variables were above .80 for 16 items. [n addition. the Bartlett's lest of s.phericity ();2) := I r 28.371, df = 190. p < .001) rndlcmed mal the faetorability of the cerrelatien matnx i excellent. The principal c mp nents nalysis was then performed. The Iirs i. len eigenvalues were 5.66,

Table - 2 ; Principal component factor analysis. of BPM..cUT20 scale.

BPI-CUT20

Factor 1

Brief Hems

.49 .so

Wonder about identhy, Take troublesome risks.

Feels smothere-d when shown concern.

I.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10 11. 12. 13. 14. J5. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Feel that things are not real

Feelings quickly change to opposites. Sen se of ilopel ssness.

Repeatedly feel burt in relations.

ACl unlik self.

Unnecessarily feel guilty.

Caused intentional self-harm.

Feels trapped in elos relarions,

Body parts appear strange.

Need to break close relations.

Sense of unreal.

.66 .49 .53 A6 .73

.42 54 .35 .5t 50 .51 51 .67 54 .66 .#

Others appear I osdle. Attempted sulci e. See life as a dream. Stolen things.

Unsecure about questions. Murd~rou ideas,

" .

Note: Loadings > absolute value of .30 are sh l n ill th b rld-Iace.

.. I li personlllilY· aFfecEivlB ins.UibiHty and FFM N

B OTu:er me ,... -

CU'l20. direct DFA has been carried olJlLThe biBh (n = 63) and low (n :: (5) scorers were lobUtinoo by utilizing 13M and 27tiJ pellcentiles. J'le.speetiv,ely~ The AIS and N.;O-FFI N were emp].oyedas prediclOrs 0 f the high scorers/ low Scorers C8mgori,es. The lLSSU mptions of linearilt)'. normality,

muldcollinearilY or singularity. )h,omogenei:ty €.'If v,mance·cov:u;3tflCe matrices across, LWO gm1II,pS, etc. were carefully evaluated foHawing Brown and 'Wicker (2000) and Tabachniek and! Fidell (2007). The \Vilks' Lambda value for the fiClliu disorimjlll3wn function was .593' X2 (2) :;;:; 65.303. p <.0001. Th.e canonical correlation for the firs,t discrirrtlnant funetion is .638 and effect-stze is .40. The standardized canonical discriminant function eoefficients are .83 and .36 and! [he struetnre coefficients loadings) are .94 and .60 for AtS and

NEO~FFT N. respectively. The results clearly indicate that AIS as compared to NEO-lFA N, isa superior construct in predicting high and low scorers on BPI-Cut20. The Jackknifed elassifleatlon has correctly predicted 79.'} percent cases (51 eases per group). Incidentally the stepwise DFA, us~n.!!l tninimlzing WJlksAas well as maximizing Rao's V criteria, provided rn lar results while excluding the NEO-F '1 N from the analysis.

\vifh;i~ O-FFII N by .37 p <.'00 I )'. The . ge~de~ chffcrence were similar UJ the ,oDc.e obLrune on SPI-Clll2fL hese anal.)·ses indu:'alcd. thal llPI,ClII20 score' and F-BPO yielded c(Jnsl1m~f'lit

r suus,

(·actor Analysis I)f AIS

The principal componenl ana~ysis has been carried ou l 01:1 I n X 10 correlauon matrrx ~f AJS uerns. 111' xarrrinarion of correlation matrix indic31c:d c ecllenr ractorabl!t[)' The Ca tell's sen: suggested 5Jngle-f!ll,;!or solution. All the

terns ha \ t: max im u m loadings orr the first PC The londi ngs are 54. 62 .. 60 .. 56, .47. 51. 44, .57. ,j). and ,59 The saved factol'" score was ulilized In further :mal) ses ~j variable and yielded resu 11£

onsisient h the A1S

Hie r a rchi cal Reg ression A nalys i5

Th· hicrar hieal regression analysis was enr !cd out to lest 'he Importance of two personality variabl s, namely, affective instability and FF ,1 Neuroticism In expluining the borderline p t8ormllt) organization. 'The BPJ-CUf20 SCOI ~ WIIS

'pendam variable and AIS and NEO-FFI were independent ariables, 1 he order of [he entry of I d pendent variables wa.. s 3.1:> fOllo\ '0::. NEO~F I N ttl step c ne, the A (S at step two. The nalysis PIO\ ldcd the. multl pic corrctauon of llPJ-Cm20 With the [WO pt dieters. The difference be ween this squared multiple correlation and [he squared eorrclaticn of Lhe NE ~FFJ N with B PI~Cul20 s 'R ';I Change'. The R l for correlation of the NEO. FI--l with B 1- C ut20 is .14. The Iul tiple R Ior both the predictors {ogelher is .54 and (he ~ for this mood is -'2.9. The R2 change IS .15~ F Change

1 214 = 45.55. P < .0001: indicated !lUll [he Rl change alue IS highly significant, Incidentally, it mi.!. he noted that similar findings have heen obtained when Iriernrchieal regression analysis was

epcated with F-DPO as dependent vanabte.

DIS rlminant FUnc(lOn Anal~'sis (DFA

In order to test the ef lC;.u.:y a,f the two rcrsOlmfHy variables AlS and NEO- PI N .

d .. • HI

,scnmlnallng high and low scorers on BPI-

Discussion

The present work has yielded interesting findings. The mean of BPI-Cut10 scale is higher than the one reported by Leiehsenriag 11949) for normal sample Notably, it is quite Low than me mean of three samples of borderline patients of Leichsenring ( 999). Though the mean of the AIS is slightly higher than US sample, i~ is qUllc close to UK and Australian sample of Porch, et al .. (2006) The descripti ve sralisrics f NED-FA N scale are quite consistent with earlier results of Lodhi, el ul. (2002) for Indian data. The alpha reliabilities an: quite satiSfactory.

The gender differences of remales. scoring higher than males on BPI-Cut20, A15, and Ff ! N. are as pel the theoretical expectations. Notably. all the effect-sizes indicated a small magnilude of t e gender differences. Leichseuring (1999) has reponed low eorrelation of BPI wirh gemder. Paris

\o\'vek M. clh kar and Armu!..a . Padh e (2100.¢) reponed gender differcn'£es on A is n personatiil di or ers and c neluded rha: the border) i n e trai ts are more in women than m en, 'Women have een f und eo score higher than men 01'11 atffective in tability (e,g., \VCiSSI113n Klerruen, 11985). ~ui (2004) further e rnrnented th t these differem::es; do net renecl dlagnostic biases. The gender differences an ~ 1 N are 31' as per earlier

finding (Cos ta, Terracciano, 1\{cCrae, 2001).

The faer r analysl r the BPI-CuQO scale has yielded. ili1g1e factor since the measure is based on highl discriminaring i em . These items were e peeled (0 COlT late very well wiLh each other; hene leadi ng LO ne factor The factor can be under I ad a general bon! .rl ine pers.oual ity organi7.alion factor.

The hierarch ieal regression analysis. carried out to rest he importance of two per onality variables, indicated thai aff'ectlve in tabiliLy conrinues ( e pi- in vari nee In berderflne person lily vel'! afte variance due to FFM Neuroticisrn is removed. This supports th posltlon that affective instabili: I,. tlJoug,_h correlates well wi h N re ains at the core of borderline personal i ty, . i mi lar vic 's have be n presented by Koenigsberg e£ al. 2 02 . "The exam ina ion 0- standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients and the structure coefficients obtained in direct discriminant unction analysis clearly showed the superiority or affective instability over Ff1'I.4i neuroticism in cia sifying high vls low scorers on BPI-CUl2 . The e findings indicate high discriml ani alidity of affecti -e insu bility, The step wise discriminant function nalysis once a~aiIl clear rev ed e sup rioriiy of affecti e insta.bility over 1FM ur tici m in pr dieting borderline P rsonali 'I.

e conclude aiuie FFM neuroticism and a Iecri e i nstab ifit y are closely associated suggestlng some c rnmon underlying In -hal ism,

J'I. 'er. the borderline personality orr OCate. of boui the \ art bleb suggest a pibililY [haL affect: e in tability h ... s diff rernial underlying rnecha ism thai is conne led vith b rderliu Il~rs .Jnalily II app ars 11w lhe affective in lahillly has di tcrer I functional components llw re aL

9?

wi-mh the BP'D andFFM N separar ly, Beller theorization of random II dation of af'Iect ive .i nSlability migrn provide hCUCf understandi ng of lhi' issue. We 211 Q sugge I thsI narrow specifications of continuODS persenallty model are required in order to obtain a ener fit with personality disorders.

We suggest that the facet level relationships of these variables iin healthy normal subjeci. and pal;enls with border! ine personality di. order need to be studied. Such a work. if carried OUl in India, would AOL only provide deeper insight in (his issue but weuld also generate evidence for cress-euluiral

tabi lity of these findings.

References

American Psyahtatr ic A:ssocialion. (2000).

Di agnostlc and Stali tical Manual ror Mental disorders {4lh ed .• lexL rev.), Washington DC: A.uthor.

Bel hckar V.M. (200,8) .. Trail psyeholegy and eu rural studies: Issues in the Five-Factor inndcl 0, personality. Indian Journal of P:sychtllogy and Mental Health, 1. 184-195 ..

~ rown, lvl.T. & Wicker.. L.R. 2000). Discnminanr analysis. In H.E. Tinsley, s: S.D. Brown (Eds.). Handbook of applied muluvartate statistic and rnarhernatical modelling (Pl'. 2.09-2 5 , San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Co ta P.T_ Jr. & Me rae. R.R (1992 ) R ised NEO Personality Inventory (NED- I-R) and

NEO ive-Fact r Inventory EO-Ff"!

professicnal manual. Odessa. FL: Psychelegical A essrnem Resources. Inc.

COSl3, P.T. 1r:. Me rae, '.R, 1 92bl. The five-

factor model of personaluy an.ti1 its relevance to personalit I disorde s. J urna of er on IL)' Disorders, 6, 343-35 .

osra, l\! I diger, . 20 I J. Personuli

disorders and the five-factor mudd perso

ruthl)l (2nd cd.). ashington, .rn n .au

Psych\ I )g 'e I As {I iauou,

uvcl'ley. W J. (200 I). Commentary (l1i1I reeon. ceptu:lhsmg personaluy disorder calego,ries using Il'ail d:imensinns. Journal of' Pen:onalily, 69 277-286.

,

Bur dcrline personal i ty, tlrrecli v,~ i nstabl lity and PPM N

Costa, r.T .. Jr., Tern.edana, , . &. McCrae. R. R. (200 I). Gender diHerenccs in peTs,anality traits 8cr05S eultures: Robust and surprising Finding:,;. Journal of PcrsIJfl31 hy and Sociul Psyehology, '81. 322-331.

Dyce, LA. (11991). Tile Big Five factors o'F personality and lh",;rr relulionshi,p l,O persoillllilY disorders. Journal of Clinical P~ychology, 53., 587-593.

Ii rpertz, S.C., K unert, [1.J., Schweng'£r. U.S. & Sass, H. 19(9). Affective respnnsi veness in boruert i ne persona !flY d'iscrd cr; A psychophysiological approach. American J ournal of Psych iatry. J 56, 1550- ~ 556.

Huberty, CJ. & Petoskey. M.D. (2,000). Muluvariale analysis or varsancc and covariance. In H. E. A. Tinsley, &. S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied m Illtr"'ar:ialc stausu ca and nlalhematicnl modeling (pp. 183-208,) San Diego. CA: Academic Press,

Kernberg, O. (1977). The structural diagnosis of. bcrdertine personal.iry org anlaarion. III P. Hartocolfis (ed.). Borderline personality disorder (pp. 37-121). NY~ Inrernarlonel University Press.

Koenigsberg, H.\V .• Harvey, P.o., Miuopoulou, V, Schmeldter, J., New. A.iS., Goodman, M .• Silverman, I.M., Serby, M . Schopick, F. & Siever. L.J. (2002). Characterizing affective Instabilhy in borderline personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry; 159, 784-788.

Leichsenring, F. (1999). Development and first results of the Borderline P'efscmatity Invemory:

A self-report instrument (0 assess the borderline personality orgamzaslon. Journal 'of PersonaJiry Assessment, 13. 45-63.

Linehan, M.M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment 'of Borderline Persouulity Dlscrden Ne\1I York/Lendon: Ouilrari1.

Links. P.S. (2U07) Impaet (If reeeru research 011 bnrde r l i ne personality disorder C urrenr P~ycl1ii:tLr)' ~{epnrIS~ ~~ 1-1.

Lodhi, P.H .• Deo, S. & Belhekar; V.M. (2002). The Five-Factor model of personality in Indian context measurement and correlates. In R.. R. McCr.!.t: &. 1. AHik (Eds.) .. The Five-Pacter mOde] of persenality across cultures (PI'· 227~248). N.¥.: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

McCrae. R.R. &. Alik. 1. (&!s,) (2001.). The Fi.wFactor model of pel"s{ulilil'y across cultures. New York Kluwer Academic Publisher.

Paris. 1. (2004). Gender Differences in PersollaJ.ity Traits and Di50rden. Current Ps,yehia.lry Reports. 6, 71·74.

Pads, 1. (2001). The nature of borderline personali Ly dis order: multi pile di mensi oms, multiple symploms. hut one cai:egorry. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 4.51-413.

Poreh.A.M., Rawlings. D., Claridge, G, Freeman" J .L., Faulkner; c., Shell!on. C. (2006), The BPQ: a scale for the assessment of borderline pe.rsonalily based on DSM .. ]V criteria. Journal of Personality Disorders; 20~ 241-2160.

Ros s ier L, Rigozz.i. C. &:. U; members of PersDlIa.lilY Aercss Culture Research Grou.p. (2.(Xl'B). Personality disorders and the Fiv,e-Facwr Model among French speakers in Africa amd Europe. La RCVlJe canadienne de ps),chiallrie, 53.534-544,

Tabachniek, B.G & FideU. L.S. (2007). Using Multjvaria.te StaliSUC5, 3th ed. Boston: AHyn and Bacon.

Tin.sley, H E. '* Brown, S.D. (2000)~5ds.t Ham!lbQok of applied rnuleivariate statisLics and mall,u:malical mode] i ng San Diego. CA:

Academic Press.

Weissma~l. M.M &. Klerman, GL. (IQ8~t Geuder rnd dt:llrt.:s.sion. Trends NCJHrO~cicl1[,~. S. 416--L120.

Vhck M. Helhekar .md mruta A. Padhye Widi,;cr, T.A. (199'3). The DSM-UI-R categorical personality diagnoses: A erjtlque and an alternative- Psychological Inq,uky. 4, 75-90.

Widiger, T.A. (2005). Five-Factor model of personality disorder: Integrating science: and practice. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 67~S3.

Widiger. T.A &. Chaynes, K. (2003). Curr-ent issues in the assessment or personality disorders, Current Psyehiatry Reports. 5, 28-35.

Wldiger, T_ & Frances, 1\.. (1989). Epidemiology, diagnosis, and comorbidity of borderline personality disorder. In A. Tasman. R. Hales &. A. Frances (Eds.), Review of PsychiaLry (Vol. S. pp. 8-24). Wa.sblngLOn, DC: American Psych] arric Press.

WHbcrgt T., Urnes, 0 .• Friis, S .. Pedersen, G. & Karteru d, S. U 995). B erdertl ne and avoidan L

99

personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality: a comparison between DSM-IV diagnoses and. NEQ-P]·-R. J..JI.Hllal of Personality Disorders, 13., 226-40.

Wo:yshviUe, M.J., Laekamp, J .M.; Eisengart, LA., (jn1iland~ LA. (1999). On the meaning and measurernem or affective instability: clues from chaos theory. Biological Psycl1jalry,.45, 261,-269: corrections, 45. 1081; 45, '1660.

Zanarini. M.e., Gunderson, J.G, Frankenburg, R.N., Cbauncey, D.L. (1989). R,!'wised diagnostic ; nterview for borderlines: Diserimirrating BPI) from other Ax.is n disorders. Journal of Pen.omdity Disorders. 3, 10-18.

Zweig-Frank, H. & Paris, J. (1995). The five-Iactor model of personality ill borderline and l'Ionbordedine persenafity disorders. Can 1 Psycrualry. 40. 523-526,